XML 29 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Contingent Liability (Notes)
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Contingent Liability [Abstract]  
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]
Contingent Liabilities

A)
One of the Company’s subsidiaries, Drummond American LLC (“Drummond”), is under an employment tax examination for the years 2007 and 2008 of the long-standing treatment of its sales representatives as independent contractors. In January 2012 the Company received a Notice of Proposed Adjustment in the amount of $9.5 million, including penalties, from the IRS challenging Drummond’s position that the sales representatives were independent contractors. The Company disagreed with the IRS position and filed an administrative appeal with the IRS Appeals Office.

Although the Company intends to vigorously defend its position for the treatment of its sales representatives as independent contractors, the Company established a liability of $1.2 million during 2011 as its best estimate of the cost to resolve the matter with the IRS. The notice of Proposed Adjustment was determined by applying the full statutory rates and penalties, rather than applying the reduced tax rates provided by section 3509 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). The Company believes the use of reduced tax rates is mandatory for all IRS worker classification assessments, except when the employer intentionally disregarded its employment tax obligations. Because the Company believes it fully complied with its employment tax obligations, the Company based its estimated loss at the reduced tax rates. The Company applied these reduced tax rates against only one year because any settlement resolution would likely be limited to one year as this is consistent with the IRS’s settlement practices. The Company has assessed its potential exposure for other subsidiaries and time periods and has concluded that an additional liability is not probable. No adjustment has been proposed by the IRS for any other time periods or subsidiaries of the Company.

The case has been assigned to the Chicago Appeals Office. The Company is unable to establish an estimated time frame in which the case will be resolved through the appeals process. An unfavorable outcome of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

B)
In 2012, the Company identified that a site owned by its Automatic Screw Machine Products (“ASMP”) subsidiary in Alabama contained hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater as a result of historical operations prior to the Company's ownership. The Company has retained an environmental consulting firm to further investigate the contamination including the measurement and monitoring of the site. At this time insufficient data regarding the situation has been collected to reasonably estimate the cost, if any, of remedying this situation. Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for any remediation costs.

C)
In 2012, the Company contracted with a third party for the installation of material handling equipment in the Company's new McCook, Illinois distribution center. The third party, in turn, hired subcontractors to complete the project. As of December 31, 2012, certain of the subcontractors had not yet been paid in full which could have resulted in the the subcontractors to file mechanic's liens against the property. While such liens would be the responsibility of the third party, the Company could, under certain circumstances, be required to satisfy any unpaid obligations. During the first quarter of 2013, the third party made significant progress in making payments to the subcontractors. As a result, the Company estimates its possible net exposure has been reduced to zero since year end and it believes the chance that it would be required to satisfy any unpaid obligations is remote. Accordingly, no amount has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.